December 21, 2010

Ranking Republican Member Of The House Ways And Means Committee Has Staffer Who Refuses To Give His Wife A Get

Aharon Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, won't give his wife a get, a Jewish divorce, even though he initiated civil divorce. Friedman is using the get as leverage to try to overturn custody arrangemnts made by the civil court.

Rabbis, including Hershal Schachter and Shmuel Kaminestsky, have ruled that Aharon Friedman must give the get immediately, but Friedman refuses to do so.

More than 100 people gathered along University Boulevard near the high-rise apartment building the Warwick on Sunday afternoon, to protest Aharon Friedman's refusal to give his former wife, Tamar Epstein, a Jewish decree of divorce, also known as a get.

"Aharon Friedman, give Tamar the get!" the crowd chanted at the foot of the building's driveway.

Cars slowed down as they drove past the intersection of University Boulevard and Arcola Avenue. The crowd started to spill over into the apartment's driveway, as police tried to move the protesters off private property.

About 50 people from Philadelphia, where Epstein currently lives, arrived on a coach bus at the beginning of the rally. Without the get, as an Orthodox Jew, Epstein may not remarry or date.

Friedman has refused to give the get, citing a problematic custody arrangement settled by the state of Maryland at the time of their civil divorce. The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot, an international group that advocates for the get, set up a rally on Sunday to try and apply pressure to Friedman. Groups of people also walked over from Kemp Mill and other parts of Wheaton to hold signs demanding the get be granted.

Lew Joseph, a Silver Spring resident, stood at the rally because he supported Epstein and ORA's efforts to bring attention to her and other women in similar situations.

"People are coming here from different shuls," Joseph said, adding that he noticed protesters from local Conservative synagogues and neighborhood Orthodox synagogues.

Epstein herself was in the crowd.

"It's a mixed feeling," she said about the protest's effect on her. "It's hard to come to terms with my life being public in this way, but I'm gratified for the turnout."

After consulting with several rabbis in Baltimore, Epstein said she believes that she does not need to go to the Bet Din, the Jewish court, to change the custody arrangement. Both Epstein and ORA argue that Friedman should not use the get as a way to gain a more favorable custody arrangement.

Rabbi Jeremy Stern, executive director of ORA, spoke first.

"We did everything we could not to come to this rally," he said, citing four months of mediation between Friedman and his supporters.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of Ohev Sholom, the National Synagogue and Rabbi Avraham Shmidman of the Lower Merion Synagogue in Pennsylvania also used the megaphone to speak to the assembled protesters.

"Aharon Friedman walks around Capitol Hill as a religious Jew," Herzfeld said, mentioning Friedman's job with Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan﻿, the ranking Republican member of the Ways and Means Committee. "But this is not what a religious Jew does."

Herzfeld reasserted that the community would be there to support Epstein.

Friedman did not appear at the protest. In the past few days, letters have circulated supporting him, arguing that the original custody arrangement was unfair and that Epstein acted in bad faith. Beyond the fact that the two are civilly divorced, the two sides disagree on almost every aspect of the case.

David Butler, a Kemp Mill resident, said he attended the rally because he felt the situation was unjust.

It has been reported to me by your Republican colleagues on the Hill that you, and Dave Camp and Eric Cantor have all been made aware of Aharon Friedman’s refusal to give his wife a Get.

What this means is that even though Aharon and his ex-wife Tamar are Divorced according to civil law (for 8 months now), he is still “chaining” her and preventing her from remarriage according to Jewish law. This is in effect a psychological terrorism which is brutal and cruel.

Your response to me that “this is not a matter for the committee” is unacceptable and weak.

Great rabbis have investigated this matter personally for many hours and have concluded that Aharon needs to give the Get immediately.

I believe with all my heart that every day he works for you and with you, and for Dave Camp and with Dave Camp, he is a direct reflection upon both you and the Congressman.

It is your ethical and professional responsibility to tell Aharon to give the Get immediately. If you do not do that you are indeed complicit in his behavior.

Yesterday a rally was held in Silver Spring in front of Aharon’s home and more than 200 people attended. I do believe it is appropriate to also rally in the vicinity of Aharon’s work place.

I am bccing this to people on the Hill so that this matter becomes more widespread and a topic of every day conversation. Anyone who has the ability to convince Aharon to give a Get should do so. It is a great mitzvah to help Tamar receive a Get.

If you and Aharon would like to meet with me in person to discuss this, I am, of course, always available.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What am I missing?

Posted by: John Doe | December 22, 2010 at 03:12 PM

Pretty much everything.

A man's obligation to give his wife a get is independent of any beit din ordering him to do so.

Friedman is openly and clearly withholding a get in order to extort things from his wife.

That is completely forbidden.

So what about the rabbi from the Washington Vaad?

Friedman can still have his day in beit din even if he grants a get immediately.

So the rabbi is being just a tad disingenuous.

Past that, as I independently confirmed and as the WJW reported (but you did not quote, of course) Tamar offered several compromises to Friedman to fix the Shabbat custody issue. Friedman turned them down.

the video starts with calls to "free tamar now!" . the only thing enslaving her is her own mind. she is free to do as she pleases. a get is just a piece of paper whose significance depends completely on people agreeing to its significance. her freedom to reject its importance is there for her. to coin a phrase, "there are none so enslaved as those who choose not to be free".

Also, since when does a civil divorce translate into a mandate for a get? Shmarya, what is the source for your agreement with Rabbi K? I agree with what I assume is John Doe's tongue-in-cheek comment that Rabbi K's view borders on the conservadox. Since when does he care about a civil court anything?? Perhaps that's why uses the term "unethical" instead of ossur. But, if we're going to talk about ethics -- instead of legal or halachic obligations -- I maintain Tamar's moving out of town with her kid was unethical.

I agree that you must choose -- are we talking halacha, law, or ethics.

If we're talking halacha, there's no one who has said there's a halachic chiyuv for Aharon to give the get before beis din has resolve the matter. If we're talking American law, well, the matter's simply -- Maryland law doesn't care about a get one way or the other. And, if we're talking ethics, two wrongs just might make a right here. Again, on that point, Rabbi B doesn't explain how Aharon is supposed to get fairness without the get leverage.

Listen, I don't like Aharon withholding the get. I think it's terrible, generally. But the outrage against him IN THIS CASE is just not founded, particularly absent similar outrage for his ex-wife's behavior.

Okay, very interesting.
I have often wondered what lay beneath the provocative rhetoric.

It is clear as the day by your statement, that it is you who don't have the 'balls' to leave a lifestyle of stifling hypocrisy and go find the female version of a 'Chippendale' which you so obviously yearn for.

I did leave.

And for a while the isolation and poverty was holy hell, a situation which you obviously do not have the courage to contend with.

I imagine the primary reason for a woman not doing what you suggest, is because her day job and inclination do not favour prostitution.

She will find a partner who shares her interests, perhaps even loves.

If those interests include G-d and the Torah then that is the man she will want for a partner, and no other man will suffice.

Incidentally, I think generally speaking we are on a similar page and I certainly don't intend to offend.

"I'd like to know, if the roles were suddenly reversed and a woman were able to halachically keep her ex from remarrying,"

But they are able to do that, by refusing to receive a get. This is done by women and there are many chained men too. Oh, but the feminist agenda doesn't care about men. So they pretend it's only women who are victims.

What the hell are you talking about? Washington Vaad said "Both parties should return to the Baltimore Bet Din to resolve the issue of the get as
quickly as possible." How can you read that as saying anything other than there's no chiyuv yet? If he has a chiyuv what is there to resolve??

R. Belsky's letter is even more clear that "No get should be given before" a workable custody agreement is reached.

I know you don't like R. Belsky much. I don't know much about him other that he's a prominent poseik. But do you really think his ideology generally is much different than Rabbi K's? Come on. You don't like either of these guys.

And, finally, the Baltimore Beis Din clearly believes AHaron has no chiyuv because the Washington Jewish Week reports Rabbi Shuchatowitz as saying that protests are premature because Aharon hasn't been ordered to give a get. If he has a chiyuv that he's ignoring, why would protests be inappropriate?!?!

Your position is fallacious. Again, I think this whole thing is crazy because Rabbis ought to insist on the prenupts to avoid these problems. But the imbalance of outrage aimed at Aharon is irrational. The people who've become unhinged about him just don't like the TOrah's rule, but tough crap. Not because I like the rule, but the man has the power and the most you can say is it's unethical to use such power. In this case, Baltimore Beis Din and R. Belsky won't even call Aharon's behavior unethical.

There's a split of opinion here, with NO ONE saying he has an immediate chiyuv per halacha. You keep claiming the opposite. Provide a source. As you said to someone else, "put up or shut up."

What the hell are you talking about? Washington Vaad said "Both parties should return to the Baltimore Bet Din to resolve the issue of the get as
quickly as possible." How can you read that as saying anything other than there's no chiyuv yet? If he has a chiyuv what is there to resolve??

Haven't learned much halakha, I see.

There are two separate issues. One is his obligation to give the get. The second is the beit din's ruling on that obligation.

Process that.

R. Belsky's letter is even more clear that "No get should be given before" a workable custody agreement is reached.

I know you don't like R. Belsky much. I don't know much about him other that he's a prominent poseik. But do you really think his ideology generally is much different than Rabbi K's? Come on. You don't like either of these guys.

Belsky is a thug who rejects going to civil or criminal court until he approves or rabbis he approves of approve.

He should be in jail. One day he will be.

And, finally, the Baltimore Beis Din clearly believes AHaron has no chiyuv because the Washington Jewish Week reports Rabbi Shuchatowitz as saying that protests are premature because Aharon hasn't been ordered to give a get. If he has a chiyuv that he's ignoring, why would protests be inappropriate?!?!

I've answered this question a half dozen times already, but you clearly lack the ability to understand the answer – or the halakhic process.

There's a split of opinion here, with NO ONE saying he has an immediate chiyuv per halacha. You keep claiming the opposite. Provide a source. As you said to someone else, "put up or shut up."

That is false. Rabbi Breitowitz said Friedman has an immediate chiyuv to give the get. You know that, but you ignore that, largely because you don't appear to have the ability to understand what he said.

"There are two separate issues. One is his obligation to give the get. The second is the beit din's ruling on that obligation.

Process that."

I can't because it makes NO SENSE whatsoever. According to you, Aharon has an immediate obligation to give a get but then beis din is going to rule on that obligation?

In other words, assume he gives the get. What would beis din rule upon then? Wouldn't the get issue be mooted?

Isn't the point of beis din ruling to decide whether he needs to give the get now or whether there's some condition precedent regarding which Tamar must abide?

Again, you've provided no cite for any of your assertions.

My view makes more sense. First, beis din decides whether -- and under what conditions -- Aharon must give a get. At some point, beis din rules the conditions have been satisfied and the get must be issued. Then, if Aharon refuses, protests galore...

It's impossible to make sense of Shuchatowitz's comments otherwise. WHy would Tamar have to go back to beis din and press her claim? IF you're right, that Aharon has an immediate chiyuv, she should say -- he has an immediate chiyuv, why do I need to return to claim anything?

Obviously, both Washington and Baltimore are in agreement that there is NO halachic chiyuv.

"There are two separate issues. One is his obligation to give the get. The second is the beit din's ruling on that obligation.

Process that."

I can't because it makes NO SENSE whatsoever. According to you, Aharon has an immediate obligation to give a get but then beis din is going to rule on that obligation?

In other words, assume he gives the get. What would beis din rule upon then? Wouldn't the get issue be mooted?

Isn't the point of beis din ruling to decide whether he needs to give the get now or whether there's some condition precedent regarding which Tamar must abide?

No.

The primary purposes of a beit din is to make sure the get is properly written and that the woman gets her ketuba. (There is another purpose, to reconcile the couple if it is reasonable to do so, but that does NOT apply in this case.)

Custody issues, etc., are secondary because halakha has a universal ruling on it, as I've noted several times previously.

Anyway, it is absolutely clear you know nothing about halakha.

If you did learn in yeshiva, I suggest you contact your teachers and complain about how they taught you.

According to you, Rabbi Shuchatowitz's point in the article is that the protests are inappropriate -- not because Aharon lacks any present chiyuv to give a get -- but rather because Tamar has to go back to beis din so that the beis din may perform the purely ministerial act of making sure that the get is properly written?

EVEN IF normative halacha (e.g., shulchan oruch, etc.) has some generic (or presumptive) custody rule, it says nothing explicit about a father living in DC, mother living in Philly, and how often the former gets to see his daughter and under what conditions.

That must be worked out in this case still because the present arrangement is not workable.

You may believe that Aharon must give a get as a matter of halacha and Rabbi K may even agree with that (although I doubt it), but there's no doubt that Baltimore disagrees.

This is truly another example of Jeremy's Stern's failures. Your list keeps growing Jeremy as well as your nose full of propoganda.

The Get is voluntary. That is Jewish Law.

Mr. Friedman has NO obligation to provide. If Tamar was willing to negotiate like a human being instead of being a witch then maybe she would have received it by now. In this case, Mr. Friedman is doing the elegible bachelors a favor.

BTW, Jeremy, Tamar, I am also one of your failures. I feel cheated. When are you going to protest in front of my employer and home. Your attempt to extort me failed, so what's next? Beat me with dreidel?

rabbi breitowitz is full of shit and is an individual who is completely separated from the reality of this case. he has no right to make ridiculous statements 5,000 miles away.

aharon friedman is using the get as a weapon and as means of unfair leverage. this is immoral and unjust. period. just because he doesnt like the outcome of the visitation arrangement, doesnt mean he has a right to use the get as leverage. he is obviously not a g-d fearing jew. he should be put in cherem (i would just beat the shit out of him as well...)

none of you really know what this case is about or have any of the real facts.

stop assuming -- you are literally making asses out of yourselves on a public forum.